Fix The Show

[Guest]

I think idols are a necessary evil.  I don't miss several eps of predictable Pagonging before each merge.  But I hate that they telegraph them being found.  I understand they can't just throw in random footage of fruitless idol searches.  Though they kind of could, just flashes like the wildlife shots, with one occasionally turning fruitful.  But the way it is now, whenever anyone is shown poking the trees, the music swells to a crescendo and bam- they pull out a clue or idol.  At least skip the music cue.  I usually adore the editing of this show but I hate that musical anvil.  I also hate when the music crescendoes when someone is about to sink a winning basket or whatever ends a challenge.  It spoils the few seconds of suspense there is.  

[kikaha]

Maybe Survivor should NOT let the audience know, every time someone finds an idol.  Then we the viewers would be in as much suspense as the contestants. 

[peachmangosteen]

I definitely think they should at least try keeping an idol find secret from the audience at least once. It might not be a good idea, but it doesn't hurt to try it imo. It's no worse an idea than a lot of the ones they've tried. Medallion of Power, anyone!

Edited April 5, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[MissEwa]

12 minutes ago, peachmangosteen said:

I definitely think they should at least try keeping an idol find secret from the audience at least once. It might not be a good idea, but it doesn't hurt to try it imo. It's no worse an idea than a lot of the ones they've tried. Medallion of Power, anyone!

From memory, they've done this twice. The very first idol in Guatemala, that Hodgeboom found after Judd told him it was definitely on the ground - although they very strongly hinted at him finding it - and then in FvF when Amanda found one at... F5? where the edit (and her behaviour) led us to believe she'd spend hours looking but failed. Both were short-term edits though: the idol find and play happened in the same episode. 

I don't know that it'd work, from a viewers point-of-view, if, say someone found the idol in the third episode and then played at at F5, and we didn't see anything about it for that entire time. I think I'd be more than a little annoyed, to be honest. I know they do leave out other game-long information (early alliances that explain otherwise baffling wins, or don't really go anywhere), but those are less tangible. 'Oh, yeah, I had an idol the entire time' would be weird, IMO, especially if any alliance-mates know about it and it factors into voting decisions. 

[Hera]

I would also be annoyed if the first time the audience found out someone had an idol was when they played it.

Someone in the episode thread mentioned that it must suck for Troyzan, who had to find his idol at an immunity challenge, to sit at home and watch JT and Tai find idols around camp. I can't help but agree that there should be some consistency to how idols are hidden. I actually really like the twist of hiding them at immunity challenges and wish they had kept it up for the full season. The whole appeal is that people might have to do something conspicuous at the challenge (and possibly something that tanks their tribe's chance of winning) and be discovered to have the idol. I would also be in favor of letting people who don't have the clue grab the idol, if it's there and they think to take it. I also love the idea that people who have the idol on one tribe might be better about watching people on the other tribe to see if anyone is grabbing an idol—but in both seasons it's been tried, the producers seem to have given up on the idea before it can fully play out.

[LadyChatts]

When they first did the idols hidden at challenges during SC, that was the impression I got-that it might be a the make or break moment in costing your tribe a challenge, but guaranteeing safety for yourself by going for the idol.  Personally, I'd also rather the idols be a free for all at this point.  If you find the clue, but someone else stumbles upon the idol first, so be it.  And if they're going to have the legacy advantage of immunity, why not just have someone who was voted out with an idol (or two) in their pocket will it to someone?  Pretty much the same concept as the legacy advantage, without the restrictions of when it can be used.  I also wish they'd be more consistent, and I love the idea of them being hidden at challenges.  I just don't understand why Troyzan is the only one this season that had to find his at a challenge.

[omophagia]

Despite the fact that it had my pick for the best winner's run, I've always thought One World was a disappointing season for squandering a premise that could have been more interesting.

I'd be interested to see how strategy played out on a season that starts as a modified individual game from the beginning. Start with 16 players who all share one beach. Rewards can still be "schoolyard pick" for teams. When there are 16 players, the immunity challenge gives individual immunity to the first 7 (or 9) who finish, and 9 (or 7) go to TC. Continue like that until the "merge" at 10, at which point immunity becomes truly individual. Jury of 7 for a final 3. 

So there would be some advantage to keeping strong players for rewards or as meat shields, and alliances and/or voting blocs would need to be more fluid from the outset. I wouldn't want every season to play out like that, but it could make for an interesting variation for a one-off.

[NutMeg]

I want the show to move from this newsworthy (NYT? CNN?) situation it stumbled into and seems to be stuck in right now. Survivor is a place to root for people playing better than others or besting others. This season has taken a very unexpected turn last episode and that's unfair on most of the remaining players, and really I feel they deserve our focus. For their game play.      

[laurakaye]

I agree with @NutMeg, and would like to add a perhaps unpopular opinion...I hope that what happened doesn't suddenly cause a bunch of looky-loos to tune in and start critiquing the show if they haven't watched before, and are only there to catch a few minutes so they can tweet their opinions (see: Caitlyn Jenner).  While I suppose controversy is good for ratings, I still feel like this is a show for fans, of which there are many - enough to keep this show going for (hopefully) several more seasons.  If it brings in folks that tune in and get hooked on the show as a reality competition under extreme circumstances for a million dollar prize, that's great.  If people tune in just to see what everyone's talking about so they can post an uninformed opinion, well...there's much more to Survivor than what happened in the last episode.  This is not to minimize what happened in any way.  But reading through Zeke and Varner's threads shows how true fans of this show have posted some wonderful and thought-provoking words, as we struggle to make sense of what happened, and why, within the context of the game.

[SVNBob]

A new concept for Survivor.  One they'd probably never use, but could be fun still.

In the vein of Second Chance; Survivor: Last Chance.  Another "all-star" season, with no winners.  But everyone that plays in the season, unless they win*, will never be able to play again. 

It'd be hard to get a cast that would agree to the condition, but you never know.  And I'm thinking that it'd be a lot of multi-timers.  Rupert and Ozzy come to mind pretty quick.  Franchesca, to see if she can avoid first boot yet again.  Maybe Varner, in a few years.  Who else might take the risk?

*This caveat allows the eventual winner to still be eligible for a potential "All Winners" season.

[Nashville]

1 hour ago, SVNBob said:

A new concept for Survivor.  One they'd probably never use, but could be fun still.

In the vein of Second Chance; Survivor: Last Chance.  Another "all-star" season, with no winners.  But everyone that plays in the season, unless they win*, will never be able to play again.

Never happen.  Not because it's a bad idea - *I* like it, anyway - but no way is Production going to tie its own hands as to who it can/can't cast in future seasons.

[Rachel RSL]

I'd kind of like to see a season with no tribes. Just a free-for-all right from the start!

[LadyChatts]

Stephenie LaGrossa?  If for any other reason, I'd just like to see if she really is a curse to whatever tribe she winds up on.  Of course if she had a really successful run and became America's fave again she might not like being able to return a fifth time.  But after her HvsV run, she might take the chance.

@Rachel RSL that's always been my dream!  Either that or constantly switch tribes up every ep to keep people on their toes.  I don't care if it'd make it confusing as hell to keep up with people, I didn't know half the people from last season anyway.  

Im still on board for better challenges, way fewer idols/advantages/twists/tribe swaps.  I want the idols to have stipulations.  Maybe just say at the start of the season "idols are hidden at camp, challenges, and TC" and let everyone really be watching each other.  The more paranoia the better!  I'd like to see some international challenges brought over, like the black vote where the ousted contestant casts a vote to be counted at the next TC.  Might be the first time an extra vote works correctly.

[Wings]

Refrain from naming the season something that can be questioned.  All season we read posters saying, "how are they a game changer, what did they do?"   The answer is not necessarily anything, they just needed to fill the cast with players wanting to do this again.   One name I could get behind is Voted First Off.  That cannot be argued!  

[Rachel RSL]

10 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

Either that or constantly switch tribes up every ep to keep people on their toes.

Yes! That would be good too. I just think it would be interesting to see how alliances would form organically instead of being sort of forced together because of tribal loyalty.

[LadyChatts]

Quote

Refrain from naming the season something that can be questioned.  All season we read posters saying, "how are they a game changer, what did they do?"   The answer is not necessarily anything, they just needed to fill the cast with players wanting to do this again.   One name I could get behind is Voted First Off.  That cannot be argued!  

Especially if they cast Francesca for a third time!  I'd be for themes like that, or pre-jury, or final 2/3.  And I especially hate the recycle themes.  BvsW 2.0 was a bust, as was BBB 2.0.  I've heard rumors another Worlds Apart theme might be for one of the upcoming season.  If they are going to do themes, at least come up with something original (and why re-do a theme from a season that's considered one of the worst?)

Quote

Yes! That would be good too. I just think it would be interesting to see how alliances would form organically instead of being sort of forced together because of tribal loyalty.

Exactly!  It might make people actually have to play the game, not waste idols, and not be able to just be strung along as a vote.  Some international versions have even done merge/de-merge/re-merge, and Australia I believe last season had someone voted out-but they didn't leave the game, they just went to the other tribe, and took someone with them.

[fishcakes]

10 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

Quote

One name I could get behind is Voted First Off.  That cannot be argued!  

Especially if they cast Francesca for a third time!

I like Franqueskwa a lot, but if she were cast for a third time on Voted Off First and didn't get voted off first again, I would be a little disappointed.

[Wings]

4 minutes ago, fishcakes said:

I like Franqueskwa a lot, but if she were cast for a third time on Voted Off First and didn't get voted off first again, I would be a little disappointed.

HA!  Thanks for the laugh!  Philip did give some comedic moments. 

[simplyme]

Personally, I'd kind of like to see a season where they started as one tribe and the immunity challenges had randomly drawn captains and a schoolyard pick for teams. Only the losers (and anyone not picked for a team) go to TC to vote out a member.

This could be particularly interesting to me as alliances might determine who stayed more than the pure strength that often dominates the early stages. It could also be an unmitigated disaster. I'd just like to see it.

[Lantern7]

Has it always been the case that the first vote Probst reads off is always safe? I know that he has to arrange the ballots for drama, but doesn't the first vote counted mean that the person is safe? I remembered back in S2 when I was reading Joanna's recaps on Mighty Big TV, and she knew Elisabeth wouldn't get voted off the night Jerri got her torch snuffed.

[LadyChatts]

Well, Debbie apparently believed she was going when she saw her name, so maybe there is something to the order:

Quote

Debbie: Well, the first time you see your name come up on a [parchment], you know. Right there, I knew. Okay! It’s probably me. Because everybody wants to make huge moves in Game Changers. For whatever reason, the opposing alliance decided not to target Brad or Sierra. It was me. So as soon as I saw my name come up, I thought, okay, it’s probably me. 

https://parade.com/566337/joshwigler/survivor-game-changers-debbie-wanner-exit-interview/

[Wings]

15 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

Well, Debbie apparently believed she was going when she saw her name, so maybe there is something to the order:

https://parade.com/566337/joshwigler/survivor-game-changers-debbie-wanner-exit-interview/

And had it been Andrea she would say, I knew it wasn't me.   It is a face saving statement rather than saying she was hurt or upset.  

[KimberStormer]

Perhaps she thought if it wasn't their decoy target (I totally forget who that was....Michaela?  Aubry?) then something was amiss.  I don't think the Brad/Sierra alliance were expecting a unified vote from those on the outs, even just the five of them.

[simplyme]

On 4/27/2017 at 1:42 AM, Lantern7 said:

Has it always been the case that the first vote Probst reads off is always safe? I know that he has to arrange the ballots for drama, but doesn't the first vote counted mean that the person is safe? I remembered back in S2 when I was reading Joanna's recaps on Mighty Big TV, and she knew Elisabeth wouldn't get voted off the night Jerri got her torch snuffed.

I didn't know the answer, but I've been watching old Survivor seasons recently. My answer so far is that it either is not true OR it is true but only if there are either more than four(ish?) members of a tribe or the vote is not unanimous (minus the person being ousted).

Three out of four episodes I watched today (two different seasons) followed the trend where the first name shown was safe. The first episode of season 12 Panama Exile Island has a woman voted out of her four-person tribe in a 3-1 vote. Her name is shown first, third, and fourth.

As I continue to watch I'll let you know what trend(s) I see. Interesting question!

UPDATE: It is not true that the first vote Probst reads off is always safe. S3 Africa, Episode 2, the person voted out has their name shown first. The vote is 5-2.

So that's at least two cases out of five episodes I've watched where the first name shown was the person voted out.

Edited April 28, 2017 by simplyme
Added update; added bold

[enlightenedbum]

If they're going to do dumb gimmicks, do the no tribes gimmick.  Merge day one.  16 person madness at tribal.  Post-merge is always more entertaining anyway, and it gives the historical cannon fodder a better shot.

Who cares if no one will be able to follow things until like episode six?   How is that possibly a problem. :P

[Rachel RSL]

5 hours ago, enlightenedbum said:

Who cares if no one will be able to follow things until like episode six?   How is that possibly a problem. :P

It usually takes me until the merge to learn everybody's names anyway so I say bring it on!

[LadyChatts]

I still don't know everyone's names by episode 10.  I'll see someone random sitting at TC and wonder if they were suddenly parachuted in as part of a late game tribe twist.  I'd be all them switching it up.  I want to see people play the game, whatever their strategy might be, and constantly shifting things around might get rid of the cannon fodder early on.  

Of course, it could backfire and have people too afraid to make a move that literally one or two people are calling the shots and there's a massive 12 person alliance.  And Probst probably wouldn't go for a merge day 1 because that would mean the alpha males would likely be targeted first.  Won't be a happy Probst if his man crushes get targeted first!  And, um, some of us who like the eye candy, especially if they have manbuns.

This past week has me going back to fixing the editing.  As glorious as it was to see the downfall of the arrogant, obnoxious, full of themselves 5 (not calling them the six since Sarah flipped), it was painfully obvious someone was going from that alliance.  I assumed Sierra, but I figured someone was going.  I didn't think the show would possibly portray them as being as arrogant and cocky if they were going to pull through together for another episode.  Unless of course their downfall came later.  And I know they can't exactly tell the jury how to vote, but I miss the days when the winner literally came down to the last name Probst pulled out of the urn.  There's no suspense anymore.  I think Aubry and Michele is the closest I can remember a vote being in awhile.  

And while I'm on the subject, I may be in the minority, but I wish they'd go back to having a final 2.  I'd be content with them having a cast of 16 again, but I think it was better when it was a final 2.  Final 3 always has one goat dragged along to the end that everyone knows isn't going to get any votes anyway.  It's like they are there to be a final 3 chaperone or something.

Edited April 28, 2017 by LadyChatts

[seltzer3]

8 hours ago, enlightenedbum said:

If they're going to do dumb gimmicks, do the no tribes gimmick.  Merge day one.  16 person madness at tribal.  Post-merge is always more entertaining anyway, and it gives the historical cannon fodder a better shot.

Who cares if no one will be able to follow things until like episode six?   How is that possibly a problem. :P

It will be pretty trainwrecky, for Probst to read 16  or 20 votes in one sitting especially if there aren't that many set alliances.

"That's 5 votes stephen, 3 votes ciera, 2 votes Kass, 2 votes Andrew, 1 vote Tasha, 1 vote Abi....."

[Rachel RSL]

Good. I like that. Make Probst earn his pay.

[peachmangosteen]

4 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

And while I'm on the subject, I may be in the minority, but I wish they'd go back to having a final 2.  I'd be content with them having a cast of 16 again, but I think it was better when it was a final 2.  Final 3 always has one goat dragged along to the end that everyone knows isn't going to get any votes anyway.  It's like they are there to be a final 3 chaperone or something.

One member of the F3 usually doesn't even get any questions directed at them at all so it seems just completely pointless for them to even do F3s. Personally I hate them and think they're at the top of the list of bad decisions the show has made.

Edited April 28, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[simplyme]

3 hours ago, peachmangosteen said:

One member of the F3 usually doesn't even get any questions directed at them at all so it seems just completely pointless for them to even do F3s. Personally I hate them and think they're at the top of the list of bad decisions the show has made.

The one thing I like about the F3 is that in theory, at least, it means there's SOME chance that at least two people sitting up there should have a shot at getting votes. With an F2, it's pretty much over once someone wins the immunity challenge unless that person is a moron. They take the goat.

I mean, the way Cagayan ended bugged the hell out of me, but that's the way F2s work. I would have loved to have seen that as an F3.

[kikaha]

6 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

And while I'm on the subject, I may be in the minority, but I wish they'd go back to having a final 2.  I'd be content with them having a cast of 16 again, but I think it was better when it was a final 2.  Final 3 always has one goat dragged along to the end that everyone knows isn't going to get any votes anyway.  It's like they are there to be a final 3 chaperone or something.

If they always had F2, my guess is that Denise would not have won Philippines; Sandra would not have won HvV; and Natalie Anderson would not have won FvF2.  They likely would not have made F2. 

F3 is more inclusive than F2.  So even though one of the three finalists often gets few or no votes, the third person in sometimes wins.  F2 keeps out potential winners: Cirie, e.g., probably would have won Micronesia if they'd had F3 that year; and Terry would have won Panama.

Overall I like F3 more.   

[seltzer3]

In terms of storylines though F2 have been more compelling.  The generally most memorable scenes happen during F3 vote out.  

-Vee backstabbing Kathy ruthlessly, right after Kathy gets eliminate.
-Johnny Fairplay gets owned by Lill in the endurance challenge.
-Rob Cesternino desperately trying to get a deal with Jenna.
-Tom/Ian F3 immunity showdown.

The other issue with F3, is that so many of the final votes have been so incredibly non suspenseful.  We've rarely had a close F3 vote.  We had two blowouts in the past three seasons with Jeremy and Adam winning.

There have been a lot of F2 very close votes in contrast.  Yeah people hate F2, because the "most deserving" loses, but its pretty compelling watching two people duke it out in the finals and the jury forced to vote the "lesser of two evils".

[Rachel RSL]

I'm just "liking" everybody's posts because you all make really good points. As I'm reading the thread, I keep changing my mind about which is better and now I don't know what to hope for this season.

[kikaha]

Seltzer, I think if you look at all F3 and F2 seasons, the numbers may actually favor F3 in terms of close final votes.  Also, I suspect that if all the F3s had been F2s, we'd see even more blowouts.  Season 32 is one example: whoever would have won the F3 FIC would keep Tai, and win unanimously.

Assuming the person who wins FIC has a somewhat realistic view of the season, in F2 he or she can boot the person most likely to beat him or her.  Jenna e.g. booted Rob C.  Tom Westman booted Ian.  Aras booted Terry, Amanda booted Cirie, Wu (should have!) booted Tony.  With F3 they can't stack the deck so easily.  It opens the door to a (IMO) more deserving winner.

As for end-game drama, F3 simply pushes that back one tribal.  

[LadyChatts]

The way the final 3s have gone, though, is that there always seems to be dead weight there.  Will, Tai, Missy (who was so disliked that Jaclyn got an extra vote just so she wouldn't tie for second), Sherri, Dre, Cassandra, the guy who finished in the Samoa final 3 (I seriously can't remember his name).  I think it's more competitive and has a more strategic element when it comes down to that final immunity with the final 3.  I know not all final 2s have had close votes that came down to the last name Probst read, but I usually thought there was more suspense.  I think the final 3 has turned more into a "at least one person can be a goat that we can drag to the end because we know we can beat them."   

As @seltzer3 pointed out with some great examples, I'd add Parvati dropping out of the IC in Micronesia, and Rich dropping out in season 1.  Both knew they were going to the end regardless, and at worst they'd finish 2nd.  At best they'd win.  I know not all final 2 combos would necessarily defeat the blow out votes that have begun happening in recent seasons (Jeremy was still winning over Spencer and Tasha regardless of who he was sitting next to, and Mike was winning WA no matter what), but I don't know, I think it's taken something away.  I get your point though, and I didn't mind final 3s at first, but I'd like to see them go back to final 2s for awhile.  Maybe we'll get a season where it happens by default.   

Edited April 29, 2017 by LadyChatts

[enlightenedbum]

Cook Islands: Ozzy or Yul (probably Ozzy) wins the final immunity and boots the other, wins a million bucks.  BOOOO

Fiji: Dre wins final immunity probably, boots Earl, Cassandra wins.  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

China: Amanda wins final immunity, boots Todd, Courtney wins?  Hooray! (I hate Todd)

16/17 had F2s

Gabon: Bob wins, boots whoever, wins (whatever)

Samoa: Natalie is going to F2 and winning regardless of who wins final immunity (whatever)

HvV: If Russell wins final immunity he boots Parv and gets shut out by Sandra, if Parvati wins she boots Sandra, Russell calls it the stupidest move ever, she wins unanimously (either way this is hilarious)

Nicaragua: Jud wins I guess?  I cannot tell you who the other two people at F3 were.

RI: Rob wins obviously.

I start to lose track here.  So F2 in those seasons gets us 4 outcomes that are the same, one that's different if Parvati outlasts Russell, one that's better, and two that are worse (depending how you feel about Ozzy vs. Yul; I am firmly on Team Yul there).  Only one of those votes (Amanda vs. Courtney) would have been suspenseful though.

Edited April 29, 2017 by enlightenedbum

[Rachel RSL]

33 minutes ago, LadyChatts said:

the guy who finished in the Samoa final 3 (I seriously can't remember his name).

Mick Trimming. Who I have literally no recollection of whatsoever even after Googling him, his picture and a recap of his season. 

[SVNBob]

1 hour ago, enlightenedbum said:

Cook Islands: Ozzy or Yul (probably Ozzy) wins the final immunity and boots the other, wins a million bucks. 

Taking this to the Cook Islands section...

[kikaha]

7 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

I know not all final 2 combos would necessarily defeat the blow out votes that have begun happening in recent seasons (Jeremy was still winning over Spencer and Tasha regardless of who he was sitting next to...

The question is, would Jeremy have made F2?  Spence was a much bigger challenge beast.  Seems likely he wins FIC, boots Jeremy, and wins the season.  Vomit. 

[peachmangosteen]

11 hours ago, enlightenedbum said:

Fiji: Dre wins final immunity probably, boots Earl, Cassandra wins.  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Maybe this is why I like F2s because I really wanted Cassandra to win Fiji.

Good points about the F3s, but I still prefer F2s. F3s make for more boring and/or rage-inducing FTCs for me.

Edited April 29, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[303420]

12 hours ago, kikaha said:

Assuming the person who wins FIC has a somewhat realistic view of the season, in F2 he or she can boot the person most likely to beat him or her.  Jenna e.g. booted Rob C.  Tom Westman booted Ian.  Aras booted Terry, Amanda booted Cirie, Wu (should have!) booted Tony.  With F3 they can't stack the deck so easily.  It opens the door to a (IMO) more deserving winner.

That's classic goat strategy. Colby should have booted Tina and Lil should have booted Sandra, but they had personal shit override their desire to win. In the latter case you're looking at two goats in F2, and there was a real chance that Lil could lose to Fairplay. The story I tell myself was that she decided the risk/reward of a guaranteed loss to Sandra was better than the risk/reward of a possible loss to Fairplay. Because of this, Lil will never be one of my least favorite players. If she'd taken Fairplay and then lost and had a sad, I probably would like her a lot less. 

The Tom/Ian thing was weird; remember the deal Ian offered Tom after hours on the trees? Ian: "I'll drop out of you promise to take Katie to F2." Tom: "???? Um, OK. That's a deal I can live with, you fucking weirdo." All of that speaks well of Ian as a human, and I respect that, but he will always be one of my least favorite players because if THAT'S the deal you're offering, you don't make me hold on to a tree for two fucking hours to get it.

But check this out: Brian Heidik vs. Clay. If I'm not mistaken, that's considered the first successful use of the goat strategy, and it was a 4-3 vote! If it's an F3, Does freaking JAN win Thailand?  

11 hours ago, LadyChatts said:

The way the final 3s have gone, though, is that there always seems to be dead weight there.  Will, Tai, Missy (who was so disliked that Jaclyn got an extra vote just so she wouldn't tie for second), Sherri, Dre, Cassandra, the guy who finished in the Samoa final 3 (I seriously can't remember his name).  I think it's more competitive and has a more strategic element when it comes down to that final immunity with the final 3.  I know not all final 2s have had close votes that came down to the last name Probst read, but I usually thought there was more suspense.  I think the final 3 has turned more into a "at least one person can be a goat that we can drag to the end because we know we can beat them."   

As @seltzer3 pointed out with some great examples, I'd add Parvati dropping out of the IC in Micronesia, and Rich dropping out in season 1.  Both knew they were going to the end regardless, and at worst they'd finish 2nd.  At best they'd win.  I know not all final 2 combos would necessarily defeat the blow out votes that have begun happening in recent seasons (Jeremy was still winning over Spencer and Tasha regardless of who he was sitting next to, and Mike was winning WA no matter what), but I don't know, I think it's taken something away.  I get your point though, and I didn't mind final 3s at first, but I'd like to see them go back to final 2s for awhile.  Maybe we'll get a season where it happens by default.   

F3 actually NEGATES the goat factor. The whole point of a goat is that they're more abhorrent than you and the jury has to vote for someone. If a tight alliance takes a goat, all they're doing is agreeing to lose to each other. Furthermore, they risk the possibility of everyone being pissed at them and voting for the goat anyway. The last person you want to be sitting next to at F2 is your loyal ally. Boot that some bitch right before the final, shake their hand, and collect their jury vote.

Another impact of F3 vs. F2 is that it gives the Brett/Fabio/Yau Man character (in many cases, the "bunny") one less immunity they have to win (I realize it doesn't change things in Brett/Yau Man's case because they were booted at F4, but for this thought experiment, assume they won F3 but still had one more immunity to win. You'll see how it gets nutty) Here's the real life scenario: In Nicaragua, what if it's an F2 and Fabio doesn't win F3 immunity? Sash and Chase are F2 and who wins? I don't care about that shit pile of a season so much, but it's a perfect example of how whether it's an F2 or F3 can radically change the outcome.

I think the most suspense created is if you don't know whether it's an F2 or F3. The strategies can radically differ. I think that's more or less where we are, right? The contestants never really know if it's F2 or F3? You have to play with contingencies for both.

[Oholibamah]

16 hours ago, enlightenedbum said:

Cook Islands: Ozzy or Yul (probably Ozzy) wins the final immunity and boots the other, wins a million bucks.  BOOOO

Fiji: Dre wins final immunity probably, boots Earl, Cassandra wins.  BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

China: Amanda wins final immunity, boots Todd, Courtney wins?  Hooray! (I hate Todd)

16/17 had F2s

Gabon: Bob wins, boots whoever, wins (whatever)

Samoa: Natalie is going to F2 and winning regardless of who wins final immunity (whatever)

HvV: If Russell wins final immunity he boots Parv and gets shut out by Sandra, if Parvati wins she boots Sandra, Russell calls it the stupidest move ever, she wins unanimously (either way this is hilarious)

Nicaragua: Jud wins I guess?  I cannot tell you who the other two people at F3 were.

RI: Rob wins obviously.

I start to lose track here.  So F2 in those seasons gets us 4 outcomes that are the same, one that's different if Parvati outlasts Russell, one that's better, and two that are worse (depending how you feel about Ozzy vs. Yul; I am firmly on Team Yul there).  Only one of those votes (Amanda vs. Courtney) would have been suspenseful though.

My money's on Susie in a classic endurance-based Immunity Challenge. Even something out of left field like Tocantins' simmotion challenge may have been up her alley. She was bizarrely good at things involving dexterity and careful movements (i.e. card stacking and fire making, both of which she won). She likely boots Bob and wins handily, which I would have preferred to the reality. 

Dawn and Monica also would have had a good chance in a final endurance challenge, but would they have been wise enough to boot Cochran and Tyson? Methinks Monica yes, Dawn no. Either way, I would much prefer to recall Dawn and Monica in the winner circle than freaking Cochran and Tyson who were so terrible their first times out that I can't even appreciate their easiest-setting wins against a bunch of n00bs. #WWMD

Ken losing to Hannah also would have produced a very satisfying ending for me, although I wonder if her Final Tribal would have been as strong if she didn't have Adam to play off/defend herself against. In this way I also think the Tocantins FTC would have been interesting with Erinn as an intermediary between Stephen and JT. JT probably still wins unanimously, but she played well at Tribal and could have messed some stuff up. 

Even though Courtney beat Amanda IRL, I think Amanda wins in a F2. She still gets Erik, and probably amasses Jean Robert, Jaime, James and Peih-Gee without Todd there. Frosti and Denise still go Courtney, with Todd's degree of betrayal irrelevant. Regardless, this is probably the most interesting F3 we've had.

More interesting is Todd winning final immunity and booting Amanda. Does Erik vote Courtney along with Frosti and Denise, and does Todd force a tie? Courtney FTW!

SJDS had an awesome final 3, so it can stay final 3. 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Oholibamah

[seltzer3]

I don't know if anyone watched Koh-Lanta (French Survivor) or the Phillipines Survivor.  But both of those countries had a twist called the black vote.  The black vote is that the person who gets voted out, and gets to cast one extra vote against someone.  That extra vote gets casted in the next tribal council (unless that person wins immunity, or tribe wins immunity).  While most of the times that extra vote is inconsequential, it had made a difference in who goes home.  It does make things interesting, in that you don't want to be the figure head that backstabbed the last person, otherwise you will likely get the extra vote.

[simplyme]

I think we're seeing more goats in the finals because people are getting better strategically at this game, not because the early-season F2s were so much better of a format. As @303420 pointed out, F3 should help to negate the goat factor a bit. As to the drama factor, regardless of whether it is F2 or F3 the peak is usually going to be the final immunity challenge and the following tribal that sets the finalists. Number of finalists seems irrelevant to me in that.

Having just rewatched Panama (12) and Cook Islands (13), I'd forgotten how powerful the original hidden immunity idol was and how much it affected things. Now I really want to smack Tyler Perry. Never, ever bring that thing back again.

If we're stuck with themes, part of me wants to see a tribe of geeks. Not sure what the other tribe(s) would be, though? And imagining Survivor's idea of a geek terrifies me a bit.

[Nashville]

44 minutes ago, simplyme said:

If we're stuck with themes, part of me wants to see a tribe of geeks. Not sure what the other tribe(s) would be, though? And imagining Survivor's idea of a geek terrifies me a bit.

 

Freaks vs. Geeks, maybe?  :>

[Wings]

47 minutes ago, simplyme said:

If we're stuck with themes, part of me wants to see a tribe of geeks. Not sure what the other tribe(s) would be, though? And imagining Survivor's idea of a geek terrifies me a bit.

Oh god no.  I would be Beauty and the Geek.  

[MissEwa]

1 hour ago, simplyme said:

If we're stuck with themes, part of me wants to see a tribe of geeks. Not sure what the other tribe(s) would be, though? And imagining Survivor's idea of a geek terrifies me a bit.

I feel like this is a bit what BBB was supposed to be but then it got corrupted somewhere in the casting process. I think Survivors idea of what a geek is could go two ways - on the one hand, I'm sure Jeff and the other producers hold that terrible stereotype of geek as socially-defective basement-dweller, but on the other I suspect they think anyone with above-average intelligence and less-than-television-ready looks is a geek. Casting-wise, I don't think they'll ever go much geekier than Cochran or Stephen - nerdy, but still well-spoken and entertaining enough to make good TV. 

Re. the F2/F3 debate, I think both have produced their share of good and bad results. I do think the F3 reduces, but doesn't negate, goat strategy (you just need two goats... Natalie and Phile being perfect examples). I do like the purity of a F2 when it comes to that last vote-off - winning the FTC means that decision is 100% on you. When it's a F3 you're safe and your vote holds a *lot* of sway but there's also the possibility of a forced tie (and the never-happened but theoretical chance of a 1-1-2 vote where the person the FTC winner votes for doesn't go home). 

[KimberStormer]

7 hours ago, Oholibamah said:

Even though Courtney beat Amanda IRL, I think Amanda wins in a F2. She still gets Erik, and probably amasses Jean Robert, Jaime, James and Peih-Gee without Todd there. Frosti and Denise still go Courtney, with Todd's degree of betrayal irrelevant. Regardless, this is probably the most interesting F3 we've had.

More interesting is Todd winning final immunity and booting Amanda. Does Erik vote Courtney along with Frosti and Denise, and does Todd force a tie? Courtney FTW!

I don't think there's any way Peih-Gee votes for Amanda.  And presumably they would have started the jury one earlier to avoid the tie and Sherea was a guaranteed Courtney vote.  I think it would come down to Todd.  But I do think he would be all "game recognize game" and vote for Amanda, so.

But the thing about F2 vs F3 is that unless it is a surprise those games probably don't go the way they did anyhow, because people are planning based on how many people are going to be there.  I don't think we can say "boy wouldn't it have been great if it was F3 and Tom and Ian got to duke it out at FTC" because there's no way IMO they would have let each other get there.  Ozzy VS Yul was pretty much a one-time event and it was only because of a surprise F3 and the suckiest idol to ever suck.  There's a reason it wasn't Malcolm VS Denise, F3 or no F3, you know what I mean?

[Hera]

I doubt this will be a popular idea, but I've always thought it would be interesting to have a season where the voting is cumulative (but previous votes only count against you if your name is written down at the current Tribal Council), with everyone's tally being reset at the merge. So while Alice may go home because she got 6 votes to Bob's 5, Alice's alliance can get Bob out at the next Tribal Council (assuming Bob doesn't have immunity) by putting their four votes on him again. Of course, then the person who gets six votes from Bob and his alliance is in trouble at the tribal council after that one—unless s/he can get seven votes on someone else. Meanwhile, Steve might have 6 previous votes against him, but since no one wrote his name down at the current TC, he's safe.

The reason I'd want to see this is to watch how the voting strategy evolves and to see what it does to alliances and the kind of winner it produces. Suddenly, throwaway votes (like Cirie's vote for Sierra two episodes ago) would really start to matter, as do suggestions of who should be the decoy vote when you're trying to blindside someone.

Furthermore, savvy players will realize that in the Alice and Bob example above, if the votes aren't there to save Alice, her alliance only needs to put three votes on Bob (since seven votes are all that are needed to get him out, and they'll have the other four of those at the next TC), leaving two votes free to put on someone else in Bob's alliance, for the TC after that. After TC, Bob realizes that he's in trouble and try to get a new coalition of seven people to save himself (or he might vote for Steve at the next TC). Either way, Alice's alliance will probably not be pagonged by Bob's.

Idols would work as usual, negating all votes for you at the Tribal Council when it's played—so a player with previous votes wouldn't get any new ones added to their tally and s/he would be safe from being voted out, but their votes from previous TCs still count at a future tribal council where someone does write that player's name down (and s/he doesn't play an idol).